The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

"The US census record from 1920 seems to put an end to the mystery. 'Archie Lee Wright' is listed as a nephew in the household of Cleveland Moore and was three years and two months old"

That is definitive.

Moore was born in 1916.

 

I hope you know I've abandoned this thread a good while ago. I'm not wasting my precious time on yet another Marciano thread.

 

24 pages.

Still not one person defending Rocky's resume has conceded the point about how much mileage so many of his opponents had (through no fault of his own).

Will we finally get an acknowledgement in 34 pages? When it's 2034...? When the sun blows up??? Or, at the very least, a logical argument defending the mileage of his opponents beyond the typical "they aged like wine" talking point that I've eviscerated dozens of times? Rocky is literally the only ATG HW champion whose 4 best opponents had some pretty serious mileage, injuries, losses, etc.

 

Trying to justify a 40 (or 43) year old light heavyweight as being the best available contender among the heavyweights isn't quite the win those that propose it think it is.

Imagine a heavyweight division so bereft that the Tarver-era Hopkins was Lennox Lewis' best contender. Now, imagine Hopkins KD'ing Lewis.

 

Well thank you for finally giving an honest answer and conceding this point. Since you took the time to formulate these points I'll respond.

1) Yes, they were great on paper and in terms of their career achievements. Louis is arguably the best HW of all time or at least #2-3 for most people. Walcott you could argue was top 20 material. Charles maybe top 30-40. Moore wasn't a great HW, but he did decent there and was an amazing LHW.

The issue isn't whether these were great fighters on paper, it were they great fighters in terms of their overall h2h ability when Rocky fought them. And to me, I'm not so sure they were. I'm not saying any random drunk from the local bar could've beaten them, but even for men their size I wouldn't say they were a murderer's row. They were dangerous, crafty, and could crack, but their mileage and age made them fairly beatable to be completely honest (especially compared to their prime selves).

For the record, I think Patterson was definitely a great fighter. A good medalist and a 2x champion is a solid lock for a hall of Fame career. If Walcott was great, then so was Patterson.


2) I don't care that much about Valdez. Rocky consistently beat #1 contenders on a regular basis. The only reason the matchup is intriguing would be to see how his style adjusts to a much taller opponent. Most of the bigger men Rocky faced just weren't that good or have very limited/zero footage.

I do not criticize Rocky for the fact the best guys around happened to be fairly old and had high mileage. I even said this in my post you replied to. But if we're asking ourselves what was the quality of those opponents when he fought them, then again we can call this into question even when they were ranked/champs. As a comparison, the WBC has Ken Norton as the #1 contender in the late 70's. Chris Arreola was also the #1 contender during the 2000's. Not all contenders are equal even when they literally have the same rank.

To reiterate, Rocky is the only ATG HW champion whose 4 best opponents were both past their prime and had high mileage. Undefeated or not, I simply cannot overlook this when the discussion is how good was Rocky's resume and his overall ability.

 

Top post!

 

I do think Holmes is both overrated H2H and ATG wise. I'm quite baffled the amount of people who have him as number 3, when he avoided his best opponents in the second half of his reign by his own admission. He loses a lot of points that for imo.

 

Well it isn't really baffling when you consider these factors that may be missed if you weren't around during his era (neither was I, but I have the benefit of hindsight and research):

-Holmes reign effectively started once Ali's ended. Not only that, but they did have some style similarities and were even gym mates who sparred together. So it's only natural people compared Holmes to Ali.

-In addition to unfairly being compared to Ali and being criticized for beating him (when it was his job to do so and Ali refused to stay retired and challenged him), people often underrated or disparaged Holmes for all kinds of things that weren't his fault. The racial tension during the Cooney fight for instance. He was also blasted for his remarks towards Rocky after he failed to beat Rocky's record. To even fair to Holmes, people were trolling and instigating him and Rocky fans (including the late champ's brother Peter Marciano) taunted him. It can be career suicide to beat up one legend in Ali, but to insult another media darling like Rocky put a huge target on his back.

-Now add the complete demolition job Tyson gave him and you're left with a generation who thinks Holmes was just some bitter, mediocre footnote in HW history. It's easy to forget he had 20 title defenses and an amazing comeback in the 90's.

-Thus as time went on, people began to swing the pendulum from underrating Holmes, to giving him his just dues, to overrating him. With the release of YouTube and the rise in boxing forums, chat rooms, etc, people were able to make their own decisions and reevaluate his career without simply accepting whatever Bert Sugar or ESPN analysts had to say.



In terms of his career accomplishments and historical rating, it's hard to argue that Holmes doesn't make it in the top 10, at least in my opinion. Norton, Witherspoon, Weaver, Smith, Spinx, Berbick and Mercer either became champs or were former champs and Holmes beat all of them. Cooney, Shavers, Cobb, and Williams were all decent fighters. So 7 champions, and 4 good contenders or about 11 solid names that any hardcore boxing fan will instantly recognize (some of whom are Hall of Fame worthy). The main things hurting Holmes was that while he did beat quite a few notable fighters, he did miss some of the best of his era such as Thomas, Tubbs, Page, Coetzer, Tate, Dokes, etc. To be fair, these guys were incredibly inconsistent and often failed to stay in the rankings for a long time. Even when they became champions, it typically wasn't for very long and they would either lose the belt immediately, or after 1 defense. This is completely different from today's era where a champion holds his belt hostage and stalls with tons of "negotiations" or letting fights marinate. Holmes rarely had outstanding contenders who had the right to demand a **** because again, many of them fell of very quickly and faded into obscurity. Many of the fighters he "missed" were drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally unstable, fatsos, had legal trouble, etc.

Not justifying what Holmes did, but all things considered, he has a hell of a resume. And the guy was no chump. He jumped off the roof of van to dropkick Berbick. He fought a prime Mike Tyson coming off 2 losses. He fought Ray Mercer when he was a fat, 42 year old man and still won. He had an ATG career in my opinion and can't be outside of the top 10 based on sheer longevity and consistently elite skills across 2 decades..

As for h2h, that's a lot more subjective. The thing is, outside of his stellar jab, good speed, and quick recuperative powers, Holmes doesn't have very many outstanding qualities. He had ok power, a decent sharp right hand, pretty good uppercut, pretty bad hook, a pretty mediocre combination puncher, decent but not amazing stamina, decent defense, fairly good footwork, etc. it's because Holmes lacks 1 amazing notable quality or attribute that he's often underrated. Well, it's also true that he lacks horrible qualities as well. The only 2 things you can criticize in his game plan were that sometimes he wasn't busy enough (which could lead to close decisions as he sometimes didn't throw a lot), and his left hand dropping low which led to his knockdowns against looping right hands. Ask yourself, can you think of any boxer at all who'd have an EASY night's work against a Prime Holmes from 78-82? I certainly can't think of anyone. Now this doesn't mean Holmes was the h2h goat or the most amazing boxer ever, but it does mean that it would be hard to justify having him outside your top 10 h2h list if you can't think of a single boxer who you're absolutely certain would beat him and that it wouldn't be very difficult. That's how I see it anyways.

 

I don't have a problem with someone rating Rocky's resume above Liston or Dempsey's. Holmes is very tricky tho imo. Very different careers and circumstances.

 

I have a problem with all the above. Marciano fought in a horrible, horrible era for the division.

I only need to watch one Rex Layne fight to tell me so.